Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoinette Tuff

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antoinette Tuff

Antoinette Tuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BLP1E. It's certainly subjective here since we're talking about degrees of significance.

I think the line "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." is relevant here. While this event maybe notable, I don't think it qualifies as "highly significant". No one died here. There's no indication that this event will spur some significant changes.

I think this article falls under the line: "Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event."

I don't think there's an article on the attempted shooting itself, so all this stuff should go there rather than an article on Tuff. Oddly enough, the creator of this article created a redirect from McNair gunman standoff to Antoinette Tuff rather than create an article on the standoff. Transcendence (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Will you please stop trying to delete articles about terrorist attacks? These incidents are very dangerous and deadly and we need all the documentation we can get. Sooner or later other people will notice the pattern of deletions. It looks very odd when you and other editors immediately try to delete articles about personalities that are all over the international headlines and just got invited to visit the president of the United States. BLP1E does not apply to somebody who is famous worldwide in a day, it applies to somebody that nobody has heard of. What is your real agenda here, it's certainly does not look look improving the usefulness of Wikipedia since there are thousands of people who want to look up information on the woman and this incident. These "only 1 or 2 people died in a state of 5 million" are just disgusting, and then complaining about editors who write edits favorable to Israelis and Jews but unfavorable to Iran and Islamist terrorists and no-motive terrorists. Redhanker (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:BLP1E: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:"

• "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." This applies.
• "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." This applies.
• "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented – as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." This one is more subjective, as I stated above. I do not believe this event to be significant (notable, but not significant), especially since no one died. Hence, I conclude this applies as well.

Therefore, I conclude WP:BLP1E does apply. There is nothing in WP:BLP1E to backup your claim that: "BLP1E does not apply to somebody who is famous worldwide in a day, it applies to somebody that nobody has heard of." One of the reasons WP:BLP1E exists is to deal with people who are famous for one event. If nobody has heard of a person, then WP:BLP1E wouldn't matter because no one would write an article on that person in the first place. Transcendence (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the arguments presented by Transcendence. Not every person who is "famous" for a day or who meets the President is therefore entitled to a Wikipedia article. I doubt there are hordes of people looking for (or even expecting to find) an article here on Wikipedia on Ms. Tuff; if they are looking, they are looking at news sources, which is exactly where they should look. Those source materials will remain available (at their sources and in search engines) for years to come on the Internet, far longer than anyone's memory of (or interest in) Ms. Tuff or her heroism, as heroic as it may have been. I do not think this one event and act of bravery justifies a biographical entry for Ms. Tuff. She deserves mention, but in the context of an article on the event if one is created. I also find Redhanker's attempt to connect the initiation of this AfD discussion to his/her theories about Antisemitism on the part of other editors both reprehensible and misguided. Dwpaul (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, truth be told, this is not a biographical article even though it is titled as if it was. Only the first sentence contains anything that is biographical concerning the article's subject (her employment). Every other sentence is either about the Dekalb County incident or (very briefly) about her role in it. Hence the article is really about the incident, not Ms. Tuff, and it should be titled as such, possibly (but not necessarily) with a redirect, rather than the other way 'round. Dwpaul (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Classic WP:BLP1E example, also borderline CSD A7. LGA _talk^edits 23:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The significance of the event is that Antoinette's presence, intelligence, and courage saved the lives of innocent school kids and their teachers. She was able to dissuade an active shootist with almost 500 rounds of ammunition and who knew he was going to die that day to lay down his weapon. This non-violent turn around of a deadly situation that has plagued the United States for decades could be the way of the future. This qualifies as a significant change, especially given that the news media (Washington Post^[1], Slate Magazine^[2]) continues to report on this event one week later. WalkingTwo (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:WalkingTwo's account appeared to have been created solely for the purpose of input for this AfD. Transcendence (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, with regards to "This non-violent turn around of a deadly situation that has plagued the United States for decades could be the way of the future.", please see WP:CRYSTAL. With regards to "This qualifies as a significant change", I find that statement to be ridiculous as this is not the first, second, or even third time a nonviolent solution to a shooting has happened. Transcendence (talk) 22:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per the notability requirements for both persons and events. I disagree with Transcendence that the content could be moved to an article on the shooting instead of Ms. Tuff. This event does not appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:EVENT at this time, since the duration of coverage has not been long enough to suggest enduring significance. Edge3 (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - BLP1E, and premature. An article on the shooting might possibly be justified under notability guidelines, though they are questions over its long-term notability; but an article on Ms Tuff certainly isn't at this time. If she goes on to become a more significant figure, an article can always be created at a later date. Robofish (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep To soon to properly determine, I agree with Transcendence Regarding WP:BLP1E I believe Antoinette currently meets ‘’’High-profile’’’ status at this time for ‘’’low-profile individuals’’’ {essay|WP:LOWPROFILE|WP:WIALPI} Sources CNN, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Washington Post.

Why also delete when based on the information and sources below may meet anyone of these. Just looking at the sources and recommending to also Keep because;

Regarding {WP:WI1E} sources indicate Antoinette may soon meet ‘’’Any biography’’’{shortcut|WP:ANYBIO} and could be soon merged into CNN Heroes article. Sources CNN

Another possible merge could soon be made are suggestions for Antoinette to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, Sources International Business Times as well as many users on Twitter and Face book are trying to gain support for this.

Antoinette’s circumstances are currently being used in national news stories as examples of Empathy, Compassion and Sympathy sources National Post, Chicago Tribune, CNN, Huffington Post and the Los Angeles Times

Interestingly enough Antoinette’s 911 quote "Baby, everything is gonna be alright" is the title of a song by Willie Dixon and included in the lyrics of B.B. King’s song “Need your love so bad” doesn't help one way or another I know but interesting info. Tinkermen (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked this lady up on Wikipedia, and was bemused to find this argument taking place between Wikipedia enthusiasts. It strikes me with your analysis of "WP:BLP1E" strikes me with your analysis of "WP:BLP1E" that many of you have long ago stopped seeing the wood for the trees (or - worse - are using a legalistic argument to disguise a political motivation). Clearly this woman is someone who many thousands of people are going to want to read about for many years to come, if only as a result of the historical record of the coverage she has received in the last week. I am a wikpedia user and very occasional editor - one of my main articles is "Antonio Jose Enes" - an obscure character from Portuguese history whose article attracts two-three visits a day. Even on the most conservative of estimates the level of interest in Ms Tuffs is going to go far beyond that for the next decade. I strongly content that this woman is significant and she is of interest beyond the specific event in which she was involved (to engage with the BLP1E argument). But most importantly she is a serious figure who people are going to want to read about. If leading Wikipedians lose sight of that, it makes me worried for the future usefulness and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia. Atrapalhado 22:44, 26 August 2013 (London)

Comment You make a lot of claims, but do not back them up.

• "Clearly this woman is someone who many thousands (or at the very least hundreds) of people are going to want to read about for many years to come." That's speculation. See WP:CRYSTAL.
• "Even on the most conservative of estimates the level of interest in Ms Tuffs is going to go far beyond that for the next decade and probably beyond." More speculation.
• "This woman is significant and she is of interest beyond the specific event in which she was involved (to engage with the BLP1E argument)." Really? Why is she of interest beyond her involvement of the shooting?
• "But most importantly she is a serious figure who people are going to want to read about." Again, speculation.Transcendence (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple of edits that will I hope clarify my argument. In particular cI think the level of coverage this woman has already received justifies a statement that there will be ongoing interest, if only as a result of historical interest. But more importantly, my appeal is precisely to common sense, rather than the legalistic dispute going here - you don't need a crystal ball to know that Antoinette Tuff is going to be of more interest even in a decade's time than Antonio Jose Enes, just common sense. Atrapalhado

You "clarified" your argument by suggesting I nominated this article for deletion because of political motivation? Are you serious? If you suspect I am not acting in good faith, I encourage you to do something about it instead of just sneaking such offensive accusations into here. Keep in mind that that this borders on a personal attack.

If you're appealing to common sense, then I don't see how you can possibly suggest Tuff will be garnering interest a decade from now. Common sense tells me that next to no one (that wasn't involved with the event) will look her up and she certainly isn't going to be of more interest than Antonio Jose Enes. Common sense tells me that at least academics will be interested in Enes, whereas nearly no one will even remember the name Antoinette Tuff in the coming decades. Your argument that this article should exist because Antonio Jose Enes exists is a classic instance of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Transcendence (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification I was drawing your attention to was the line that she would be of interest "if only as a result of the historical record of coverage received in the last week." My political motivation point wasn't directed really at you - just to express my general bemusement at why people might want this article deleted, which can only be for two reasons to my mind; because people have lost sight of the whole purpose of Wikipedia (which - and sorry for any offence - is how I would characertise your stance), or for other, political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrapalhado (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Refocus on the incident or delete. An article on the incident would be fine, and this article would make a fine beginning for one, since that is what most of the present content concerns. An article on the individual would fail WP:BLP1E; there's nothing to say about this woman that isn't related to the attempted shooting. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:BLP1E. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete delete delete per above. Non notable; WP not a crime blotter. -165.132.180.167 (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:BLP1E. The event itself doesn't meet WP:GNG, and the subject "remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." --BDD (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.